Comments

I think one of the things that causes skepticism about attempts to innovate is the bright eyed adoption of Silicon Valley style cliche. The innovation hub had a white board up at its launch that had various meaningless inspiration phrases on it, like 'Think Google!'. I don't understand why 'innovation' always seem to come with a nauseating set of cliches! In development, perhaps we shouldn't be worrying about imitating Google, worrying about whether our innovation space is decked out in bright enough modular furniture, or thinking that dressing like a hipster advertising exec is going to spark the next big lightbulb moment. Our field has plenty of inspiration. Look at the everyday innovation that occurs in developing countries--when spending time in poor communities, I'm often struck by the adaptability and creativity of people living in challenging circumstances. They aren't thinking about Google, they are thinking about ways to solve the problems that are right in front of them with the tools they have at their disposal. Sure, an aid program needs to think a bit bigger than that. But innovations will (or should) ultimately be judged on what they achieve for development, not on how cool or new they sound. When it is approached with such a cliche-riddled faddish fervour, it's pretty easy to be cynical about the usefulness of the whole thing and its longevity, and as others have pointed out, to worry that what we already know will be overlooked.

I think there is also a definitional problem. In this blog, the definition of innovation seems to be translating a finding from research into a product to be marketed. I think this is a useful definition and is consistent with where the idea of 'innovation' comes from. And important work to be funded. But the innovationXchange defines innovation as "finding new ways to solve problems". Last time I looked this was part of what gets called 'learning' and is what many human beings do every day, and what most of us would define a key part of our jobs. So in this definition, innovation is nothing new (ironically). Building learning organisations has a long history in organisational development, and in international development, and is no easy task. (I've tried it.) So this brings me back to my earlier post, that perhaps we simply need to focus on actually putting old ideas properly into practice, and we'll make more headway. Rather than spending a lot of time dressing-up old ideas in new clothing to simply disguise the real problems we find so hard to address, but which stop us from doing development that works (such as the power and politics involved in ODA).

Dear Christine, Thank you for such an insightful article, I want to acknowledge the fact that Uganda M&E system needs to increasingly build capacity of development practitioners especially government officials that are at the forefront of coordinating government projects. However, there still exist a knowledge gap between what should be basing on the set national standard and what actually is. Both the general public (who are rights bearers) and other government officials (taken as the duty bearers) need to be aware of the sector policies (which should be availed in the local language), understand their role and above all the vision of the Baraza initiative. It is a great initiative which if all communities positively take on, will improve on the quality of service delivery and promote accountability. CSOs like World Vision have involved different stakeholders in the citizen's voice and action program but putting more emphasis on joint monitoring using set score cards. The Baraza initiative is a good way to go, however based on experience, communities need to be cautious about the big tendency of persons involved politicizing the whole process.

My concerns about DFAT's take on innovation are twofold: - it seems to default to a "new = good, old = bad" mindset: whereas in development and emergencies (at least through NGOs), there is a lot of good work done through deploying proven techniques, while also quietly trialling new approaches on a small scale and then scaling up successes. - AusAID was previously a pretty risk averse organisation: I would argue DFAT is by nature even more risk averse and short termist. It will be interesting to see what happens if/when the innovation hub has a couple of costly failures, whether DFAT and Ministers are willing to wear the "waste of taxpayers' money" criticisms - especially when the miniscule fraud rate under AusAID was one of the purported reasons for folding it into DFAT. Mind you, press criticism of the aid program seems to have gone mysteriously quiet under this government. Perhaps Steve Lewis and friends from the Daily Telegraph having completed their job have been moved on to other pastures?

While I haven't seen any explicit statement of the rationale, yes, I believe the requirement to pay in 20 per cent of the value of shares held reflects the lower average credit rating of the majority membership of the institution, relative to the World Bank and the existing regional development banks. The AIIB's Articles limit non-regional members to a 30 per cent shareholding in aggregate, and of all actual and potential regional members only Australia and Singapore are currently rated AAA by <a href="http://chartsbin.com/view/1177" rel="nofollow">Standard and Poors</a>. China itself is rated AA-. In other words, pledges to pay in callable capital from many members don't carry great weight, so more actually has to be paid if the AIIB is to have any hope of achieving the same AAA rating as its 'competitors' the World Bank and the ADB. Also, of course, requiring OECD countries to pay a lot in made the decision far more real for them: they couldn't just buy seats on the board with effectively costless pledges.

Thanks for the great analysis, Robin. Any idea why the paid-in capital rate is so high at 20% if others get away with 5 or 6%. Is it to get a good credit rating?

I think there is a lack of transparency and accountability at all levels of government systems. Also, there is noncompliance with the relevant governing legislation in the mining industry. Hence there is a big need to amend all the current legislation, especially the Mining Act 1992 and the Mining (Safety) Act 1977 so that there is effective compliance with all the governing legislation, thus helping the mining industry achieve its intended purpose.

Thanks Peter for posting these documents. Evidenced the complexity of the issue. While it may be an accepted fact, some of these Pacific leaders appeared to suggest that the degree of intrusion, especially by their 'trusted' friends, is somewhat troubling. Sil, West Papua continues to be a challenge. Maybe the recent 'observer' status given to them by the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) will lead to some tangible resolution. Iam, Fiji continues to be an important voice in the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF).

I didn't either (bit surprising that they didn't define it in the report, now that you mention it). Evidently it has to do with <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/sep/25/fun-theory-gamification-development" rel="nofollow">using games and game theory</a> to encourage behaviour change. Maybe another reader out there can offer a fuller explanation?

Hi, Having recently returned from nearly 15 years working in health at the provincial level in PNG, I am concerned about the ineffectiveness of aid efforts to date to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity and GBV. Despite significant aid funding over the past decade or so, not much has changed. In my experience, aid is 'top heavy'. Donors and many aid agencies need to work collaboratively with provinces to improve implementation and service delivery i.e., ensure aid is delivered where it is needed most on the ground. This isn't happening.

Agreed. Maybe the skill is not in the top 10! And thanks for sharing the survey. Z

Thanks Camilla. Interesting read. It was good to see 78% of people thought people skills would be the most important set of skills to have, perhaps this includes cross-cultural? I admit to having no idea what 'gamification' is. And to all others who commented earlier, I'm sorry to say your excellent thoughts were lost in the recent blog failure. Feel free to repost.